This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2010-11-24 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| We also affirm the trial court's finding that the crime was attended by treachery. There is treachery when the means, methods, and forms of execution gave the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and such means, methods, and forms of execution were deliberately and consciously adopted by the accused without danger to his person. What is decisive in an appreciation of treachery is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself.[12] The essence of treachery is the swift and unexpected attack on an unsuspecting and unarmed victim who does not give the slightest provocation.[13] | |||||
|
2009-04-07 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| As to the first issue, findings of facts and assessment of credibility of witnesses is a matter best left to the trial court because of its unique position of having observed the witnesses' deportment on the stand while testifying, which opportunity is denied to the appellate courts.[24] When the credibility of the witnesses is at issue, appellate courts will not disturb the findings of the trial court, the latter being in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial unless certain facts of substance and value had been overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated which, if considered, might affect the results of the case.[25] | |||||
|
2008-06-25 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Suffice it to state that the perceived contradictions in the testimony of de Castro merely referred to minor matters that did not touch on the commission of the crime itself as to affect the substance of her declaration, and the veracity or weight of her eyewitness testimony. Witnesses cannot be expected to give a flawless testimony all the time. [12] We have repeatedly held that minor variances in the details of a witness's account, more frequently than not, are badges of truth rather than indicia of falsehood, and bolster the probative value of the testimony. Indeed, even the most candid witness often makes mistakes and falls into confused statements, and at times, far from eroding the effectiveness of the evidence, such lapses could instead constitute signs of veracity. [13] | |||||
|
2008-02-04 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| "In the case at bench, the court observes that other than his bare assertions that Irma Pama confiscated his license, plaintiff failed to present any other evidence to corroborate the same. Plaintiff's sole and uncorroborated testimony is insufficient to establish the liability of the said defendant, Irma Pama. Hence, the court finds her not liable for the damages claimed, and consequently, plaintiff is not entitled to the relief prayed for." In fact, this Court, after a thorough examination of the records of this case, cannot ignore the inconsistencies which belie the testimony of the appellant. Implausible and contradictory, the court a quo gave no credence to appellant's testimony. [sic] For one, appellant failed to convince this Court that he was forcibly detained by the appellees when he in fact opted to stay with the appellees to look for the carnapped vehicle. Apart from his allegation that he was threatened by the appellees to stay, it is evident from his testimony that he had ample time to go home as there were times when he was left alone with only appellee Balonzo allegedly guarding him. . . .[9] We find the above ruling supported by the records and find no reason to reverse it. The trial court's assessment of credibility of witnesses and their testimony is entitled to great weight and respect and even finality because of the trial court's unique position of having observed that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witnesses' deportment on the stand while testifying, which opportunity is denied to the appellate courts. Unless it is shown that the trial court has overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated certain facts and circumstances which if considered would have altered the outcome of the case, appellate courts are bound by the findings of facts of the trial court.[10] Petitioner has failed in this regard. He has not shown that the findings of fact below were reached arbitrarily or capriciously. There being no credible evidence to prove the basis for the claim of damages against respondent Pama, the RTC correctly dismissed his complaint. | |||||
|
2007-08-17 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| As to appellant's civil liability, the award by the appellate court of an additional amount of P50,000 as civil indemnity is in order, it being mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.[13] | |||||
|
2007-04-13 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| It is an established rule that factual findings of the trial court, including its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and the probative weight thereof, as well as the conclusions of the trial court based on its factual findings, are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect, especially if affirmed by the CA. Unless it is shown that the trial court has overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated certain facts and circumstances which if considered would have altered the outcome of the case, appellate courts are bound by the findings of facts of the trial court.[52] | |||||
|
2006-10-30 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Settled is the rule that the findings of facts of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonial evidence of the parties, its assessment of the probative weight thereof and its conclusions anchored on said findings are accorded great respect, if not conclusive effect, because of the unique advantage of the trial court in observing and monitoring at close range the conduct, demeanor and deportment of the witnesses as they gave their testimonies before the trial court.[44] Unless it is shown that the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated certain facts and circumstances which if considered would have altered the outcome of the case, appellate courts are bound by the findings of facts of the trial court.[45] | |||||